peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/06/85)
> In article <371@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > >You know, if net.sources.mac contained sources it'd sure be less likely to > >generate this sort of reaction. I think I've seen a total of one peice > >of source code in it. Fine, binhex up the resources fork, but if you're > >going to post to a sources group, post sources. > > > > Well, perhaps you could recommend a language for the postings? Whatever they're written in. NEON if that's what you used. > Pascal? MSBasic? Assembler? Sure! > C (and are all the C's available for the Mac compatible??)? No, but that's a seperate gripe. Post in 'C' if that's what you used. > XLISP?? Be nice. Be nice to see some XLISP source in any group, but I don't think it's a "real" language. Certainly I don't have any applications for it. > As it is now, the binhex files aren't readable by > humans, but they *are* usable by all MacIntosh owners (unless you have done > something funky to your Mac, of course). But it's useless to non-macintosh owners who get upset at net.sources.mac because they see it as a resource drain. That was my original point. > If source is posted, then it is > usable to only a small percentage of MacIntosh owners, ie, those with that > particular language. True, and the corrolory of my previous point. I'm not arguing for or against binhexes. I'm arguing for sources. For public relations if nothing else. If the binhex is posted, it's only usable by a small percentage of programmers who use that particular language, those who are macintosh owners. :-> > If you want the source, you are probably wanting to > change something in it (else you would just compile it anyway), and can ask > the author of it, and if he or she wants you to have access to the source, > he/she can send it to you. I want the source so I can see about porting it to non-macintosh machines. If you can't write code that can be easily ported, feel free to hide behind BINHEX. Writing non-portable code in a high-level language is a sign of incompetance. I wouldn't want to run code written by an incompetant programmer under any circumstances. Unfortunately, I have to: I have a "home computer". The software involved is the operating system. But... that's another story. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
dws@tolerant.UUCP (Dave W. Smith) (11/11/85)
In article <415@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >If you can't write code that can be easily ported, feel free to hide behind >BINHEX. Writing non-portable code in a high-level language is a sign of >incompetance. After spending more time than I should have formulating a witty reply, I've decided that it suffices to let Peter's statement stand alone. Why waste good flamage on something this asinine? -- David W. Smith {nsc,ucbvax}!tolerant!dws Tolerant Systems, Inc. 408/946-5667 [Standard Disclaimer]
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/15/85)
> I want the source so I can see about porting it to non-macintosh machines. > If you can't write code that can be easily ported, feel free to hide behind > BINHEX. Writing non-portable code in a high-level language is a sign of > incompetance. You must bear in mind that most Macintosh programs are so structurally different that they are not easily portable. Furthermore, they generally make numerous system calls only supported on the Macintosh. Thus, I don't think it is a sign of incompetence to write non-portable code for the Macintosh (though writing portable code for it certainly is a sign of considerable competence and careful planning). -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos @ CONCURRENT Computer (A Perkin-Elmer Co.) UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642